I like the idea, but in general I think the kiddie-porn card trumps it. In a poll on the Swedish (arguably one of the countries where the dislike of censorship is strongest) hardware site Sweclockers (http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/14807-telia-filtrerar-internet-for-att-blockera-barnporr) 44% thinks "filtering" the internet for kiddie porn is a good course of action, while merely 39% see it for the counter-productive slippery slope that it is.

I'd rather search this site for pink unicorns, flowers and rainbows. I'm sure I'll find the world is a wonderfully cute and cuddly thing.If you look hard enough, you'll find whatever you want to find. Doesn't necessarily make it the truth.

If they don't use CP as the bait then it's usually that old bogie Terrorism. No-one in the media has the brains or balls to understand that filtering won't do much to either of these.

That or, being shrewd businessmen overseeing a large flow of information (only some of which makes it to prime time), they understand very well that it won't do anything. Instead, they view rampant Statism and centralization of human life in terms of consequentialism, i.e. they believe it serves some kind of "greater good" so any evils it perpetrates are somehow worth while.

Consequentialism is simply the idea that "the ends always justify the means". It's the belief that you can do a truly good thing u

He's already getting hit with a lot of backlash: #IdiotKapilSibal [twitter.com] This move by India probably has a lot to do with this summer's online anger over government corruption that eventuallymorphed into real world protests and forced the Indian Government to pass anti-corruption laws to placate the people.

It's part of India's long term goal to be able to track and silence those they consider trouble makers and rabble rousers.

The good news is this: with rapid economic development and relatively high birth rates (I think?), India has a youth culture boom on its hands. With luck, India will develop a mass counterculture of dissatisfied youth who will in effect say "Fuck that shit". I did say "with luck".

You joke, but you bring up a serious point that supports the idea that America continues to be a world innovator--"silencing dissent", as you so aptly put it, just happens to be the next natural step toward technological progress. It is merely a step back in order to take take two steps forward; that is, if the American people wish it to be so. Many seem content with a "not in my backyard" philosophy.

Frog boiling applies poorly to politics. People's expectations of freedom slowly increase. That's why surfdom, absolute monarchy, and slavery are no longer acceptable. I am quite certain that our current control-oriented mindset is temporary. Eventually, it will become intolerable (we're already nearing it), and the result will be greater freedom overall than before. That process might be avoidable, but history suggests oppression comes slowly, and freedom comes in greater bursts.

There is another meme that applies: to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.

Yes, but in the past oppressing a population has required help from large parts of the population. It's estimated that STASI employed 2.5% of the population and that possibly as much as 7% were regular and 25-30% occasional informers. Today you can put computers on the job, they track every call, every webpage, every cash transaction, analyze, mine, build patterns and dossiers. Almost all advanced weapon systems now come with IFF codes and remote kill switches, even if you could convince parts of the milita

Who said these are no longer "acceptable'? Acceptability is only relevant (a) where people care, and (b) if something is recognized to be what it actually is. All three of these either overtly exist or have just changed form into something less obviously tyrannical. Granted, it is still an overall improvement. Bu

I'm not sure it's done for self-serving reasons, but it's bullshit either way:

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,"

I don't think I could write a better one-sentence example of institutional conformism. "Normal human beings" are a myth, and even if such a thing existed, they have no inherent right to censor the abnormal ones. Almost everyone can be offended by the words of another sane, sincere human being.

Can I claim to be a normal human being who is offended by this proposal? Perhaps HE should be censored.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,"

I don't think I could write a better one-sentence example of institutional conformism. "Normal human beings" are a myth,...

Nah; you just have to understand something that he left out: his definition of a "normal human being", which is "anyone who agrees with me".

Note that, by this definition, there exists at least one normal human being: Mr. Sibal himself.

And, in a bit of recursion, we might note that the above definition of "normal" is in fact the normal definition used by most people. So when I talk about normal people, we also know that there is at least one person who fits my definition.

Can I claim to be a normal human being who is offended by this proposal? Perhaps HE should be censored.

Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were ‘ex facie objectionable.’”

Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".

Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.

Context: I am a British national living in India.

I once showed an episode of UK panel show "Have I got News for You" to some of my Indian friends. They found it hilarious, but at the same time were also a little uncomfortable with - if not genuinely shocked by - the content.

When I asked about their reaction they explained that Indian culture, for better or worse, revolves around respect for authority figures. Whether that's your parents, your boss, your elders or political leaders, it is what is

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me unless I'm China or India. How long do these countries have to be civilized before they develop enough confidence to withstand an insult? What are we at now, 5,000 years, 8,000 years and they still can't take a few unkind words? Maybe they should think about starting again, from scratch. Scratching in the dirt with a stick, to plant some food that is, right back to the beginning.

Civilization doesn't mean a constant state of progress. China and India both have newish governments that took steps backwards in some ways. Hell, this year Americans could no longer bear the sight of lovely asses in the Victoria's Secret show.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.

Plainly, Mr. Sibal has the best interests of India at heart but, unfortunately, he stopped short of the logical conclusion.

As evident from the fact that "there is some content on the Internet that any normal human being would be offended by", those that are not offended by it are clearly abnormal and have to to be dealt with accordingly. While euthanasia would be the preferred course of action, it could cause logistical problems, as well as adversely affect international relations. Therefore I suggest a t

But do these need to be banned? Is there really any justification for banning anything if it's my choice not to look at it? I choose not to click on most of this sort of thing. I much regret watching a vid of an execution by the Taliban not that long ago. It did upset me for days. I shouldn't have clicked on it.

They may, but we'll probably never know, because they're not posting anything.

I often hang out with a number of crowds that play several kinds of music, and often play for related dancing. There are occasional comments about the people in these crowds not being "normal". I like to reply along the lines of "Of course not; if we were normal, we'd all be at home, watching the Tube."

This usually gets grins, and the topic is dropped. It's obvious to all of us that this is literally true. Statistically "

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"? What's next for this jackass? Is he going to "decide" what is and is not art? *facepalm*

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"?

Weeell, we usually understand this word as meaning the common, usual, average etc., but there's another, less know meaning that works quite well in this context: "normal" as that which adheres to a "norm". I doubt this politician used it in this way though. But if he did, he could answer with: "Why, ${BELIEF_SYSTEM}'s normative specialists, evidently!"

At which point you'd reply: "Good enough, yes, except for the fact that, according to ${MY_BELIEF_SYSTEM}, it's ${BELIEF_SYSTEM} that's abnormal."

Not to mention that what people generally see as "normal" varies widly between place and country of origin, education and religion -- if any. There is no magical norm that is world-wide unless you go to REALLY basic stuff, such as eating, sleeping and breathing. There's hardly a consensus on what's "normal" even among people from one, single nation, yet alone multiple countries. Even such a regular concept as marriage can differ a lot, like e.g. in some places marriage can be polygamous instead of monogamou

The next religious war will commence shortly to decide that very question. The winners will define 'normal'. The losers will be burned out or driven out. Study the history of India, Mr Sibal. There are examples aplenty.

The idea that one guy can speak for all normal people is one thing, but when coupled with his thought that, "Yeah...we'll just stick a bunch of normal people in a room and make them delete clearly offensive material off the internet as soon as it's created" is frakking ADORABLE.

I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude. In democratic countries politicians use it to please people who chose them, so the problem is in the mindset of the majority.
For politicians it is always easier to play with those things that don't require a lot of effort.

I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude.

Right: "even though I have no good evidence whether the effects of whatever are bad or not, I don't like it so that is enough. I am told it is bad therefore it is". This is the central idea of fascism.

This makes perfect sense, because offensiveness is completely objective. In fact, the terms of being offended are as woven into the human condition as being bi-pedal and having five fingers; as is apparently the humans knack for devolving society. Great stuff India, this is definitively what you should spend your time and resources enforcing.

But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 [wikipedia.org] and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.

Telecoms and Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal met executives from Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Monday to ask them to screen content, but no agreement with the companies was reached. Stinking of rotten body odor and unwashed genitalia, he excused himself from the streetside interview and urinated on a curb, hypocritically kicking a dog that was trying to do the same thing.

Returning to the coffee shop where the interview was taking place, spots of stray urine all over the crotch of his pants, Kapil gave both his pits a whif and resumed the interview. The representatives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo asked him what his background was. Kapil stated that all of them should know, as Kapil is a coder for an outsourcing company with all of the big four as clients. "Hell," he stated, "it's the least you could do for me and my coworkers, we write your software." He then pointed at a pile of dog feces near the table and said, "You pay us instead of Americans to write code like that - Your country must be veddy veddy bad!"

When asked what Kapil's plans for the future were, he said, "Well, politics, obviously, but my team and I are finishing up the new Slashdot website. It works everytime, with every browser. They came to us because they couldn't make it themselves, and I am happy to say that is why people come to India for best coding practices. We are also responsible for adding all of the flashy stuff to Youtube, and for making Yahoo relevant again." After scratching his testes through his pants, Kapil coughed and said, "that's all. Thank you, come again," as he pulled a long stick of jerky out of his pocket, held it against his crotch pointing outward, and asked all of the representatives to shake it one-by-one. They all reluctantly did, as their holiday bonuses depended a lot on their sending of American jobs to Kapil's stewardship.

there were elections there, maybe, but the Sturmabteilung and other organs of the Nazi party used violence and intimidation to corrupt the voting process.

it doesn't mean they were democratic elections.

the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institut

.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.

This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.

Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?

---

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).

But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.

I would rather make a clear "it depends". As with many things there is no clear Yes / No. The big problem how much is the right thing amount the government should influence whatever.

1. Yes, the Constitution should be interpreted. You need to adapt the interpretation to the technological realities and resulting implications. You think GPS tracking is unconstitutional? Go look it up, there is no provision on this. Should the Constitution be perverted beyond the original intent, definitely No.

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences.

What do you expect? They're government educated by a system that is more concerned about not hurting anyone's feelings than it is with things like dialectic, critical thinking, and instilling intellectual independence. Most are far too passive (something promoted in the media by repeated example) to recognize this as a problem on their own and educate themselves despite the Information Age. This page [cantrip.org] sums it up nicely. The "lesson of dependency" is the hinge on which all the others rest.

I'll highlight the most glaring stupidity of this proposal, the unspoken and unacknowledged aspect it deliberately ignores.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

... that you almost definitely won't see unless you are looking for it. It reminds me of people who call up a talk show to tell the host how much they hate him, his views, and his show... yet they're quite familiar with all of it. You'd think a person would go with one of the multitude of other choices and listen to something other than whatever he finds offensive, but that would mean having nothing to bitch about. Nothing to bitch about would mean being denied their five minutes of climbing up on their high horse and feeling superior to someone else while they pontificate against them. This is very important to nothing human beings with no real sense of purpose in their lives and would be a great loss to them.

There are things I don't like so I don't watch them, listen to them, read them, etc, but it never occurs to me to feel offended. I don't get any pleasure or satisfaction from trying to force my will on others because I'm not an insecure fevered ego. If I were, I'd feel a sacred duty to work on fixing it while never making it someone else's problem. So, the fact that I don't enjoy something doesn't make me feel like no one else should (assuming it's just a matter of taste -- i.e. I don't feel that way about armed robbery -- since some of you are childish and jump all over every little thing not spelled out for you).

"I'm offended!" is a covert and thus cowardly way of saying "therefore, you should yield to me and change it to accommodate my tastes". It's an emotional appeal unconsciously designed to conceal a desire to control. The people who want to control others using this method are far too timid to try gaining any kind of domination or power to get what they want, so they go for the pity appeal instead. They try to gain the sympathy of someone who already has power or authority and by proxy obtain the control they desire. If they are thwarted, they accuse the authority of being insensitive and try to ridicule or shame (i.e. manipulate) them into doing their will.

The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like. These are the same disruptive types who aren't going to respect censorship laws. They would view them as a challenge. If anything, using Tor or some other international, jurisdiction-crossing proxy to evade censorship would only add to their thrill.

The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like.

Which is precisely the point of the attempted censorship. You admit yourself, from your lofty view of total freedom to say what you like, that people will be exposed to offensive material. You practice self-censorship (i.e. burying your head in the sand) in the face of something you don't like. I don't think that government censorship is an appropriate response, but "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't always work.

It will work about as well as drug prohibition. It's a law that is easily evaded and won't be widely respected. Yes you can try to order men around this way and micromanage their every action but it never really works. On an international Internet it's just too easy to get around it.

You admit yourself, from your lofty view of total freedom to say what you like, that people will be exposed to offensive material.

Yes, they will. Let's see. The most comprehensive, amazing, massive collection of information that has ever appeared before in all of human history plus the ability to instantly communicate with nearly anyone in the world a

So how exactly do you propose to stop criminals without imposing on their civil liberties? How the heck do you propose that the constitution is even to be used if you are not going to interpret it? It's just inkblots on paper if you don't read it and convert it from ink to thoughts and concepts.

Um, I don't think interpret means what you think it means. You your self are in fact interpreting it literally, however sometimes people don't always agree on the literal interpretation. I agree that it should be taken literally though.

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances

...which means you have a constitution that states things so precisely that it's impossible to draw more than one conclusion about what anything it says means. Do you have an example of such a constitution? (Hint: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not part of such a constitution - what's a "limited Time"? This is not, BTW, an idle question, given, for example, various Acts of Congress that keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.)

Clearly, if we are having trouble "interpreting" the consitution using modern-day language, the answer is to look at the spirit and intentions of the founders.

...which still means interpreting the constitution based on what the founders said - and they might not always have stated things explicitly, so now you're interpreting that, as well.

For christ's sake, we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries) that has ever existed.

"Most expensive... government" only makes sense if you mean "per capita" or "as a fraction of GNP" or something such as that. It should not come as a complete surprise that the U. S. government spends more, on an absolute basis, than, say, the government of Luxembourg. Is the U.S. government really spending more per capita,

No, debt has to be paid eventually otherwise it's theft, not borrowing.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

Obviously yes; by definition money is a government construct, it exists by law otherwise business would mint their own cash or we'd barter. [Fiat currency is fiat because you can use it to pay tax, that's what makes it special compared to an "IOU"]

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

This is a gray question, it depends on the person. Either system is sustainable though guaranteed safety nets tend to make place

Yes. The societal context in which the Constitution is viewed changes, as do the very meanings of words (such an "insure" in the preamble to the Constitution, which now relates almost exclusively to financial matters). As an example, consider the curtailing of "free speech" to exclude speech which causes "imminent lawless action". Falsely warning about a bomb in a crowded building is extremely likely to cause assault, theft, and vandalism as people try to escape. Merely advocating illegal behavior at an indeterminate time in the future is not imminent, and is thus not prohibited. There are, of course, other laws that can affect how speech may be presented. You can not abuse or harass others with your ideas, for example. In my opinion, nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.

2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?

Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations that are not yet fully funded, nor expected to be. If the government has said it will pay several million dollars for a new fighter jet over the next 20 years, that full several-million dollar figure is counted as debt, even though only a small part of it is actually due now. Planning for future expenses is a reasonable thing to do, no? Another large portion of debt is a financial device to free up quantities of money for other uses. More on that shortly.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?

According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes". A strong economy is one where money moves freely and quickly, and everyone gets what they want. In other words, "to each according to his need". When the government adds money to the economy through the Federal Reserve Bank, it also adds an equal amount of debt. Increasing the monetary supply allows the public to have more money to spend immediately, with the knowledge that said money will disappear again shortly. It enables a strong economy to be built (or rebuilt), and when the economy is running again, the money supply can be reduced gradually to improve efficiency and reduce the effects of inflation.

There is a riddle about a man dying, leaving his 19 horses to be divided among his three sons, with the eldest receiving half, the middle receiving one fourth, and the youngest receiving one fifth. After trying for several days to figure out how to divide a horse, the local wise man came and brought his own horse, adding it to the pool. The eldest received 10, the middle received 5, and the youngest received 4. The wise man then took his horse and left.

The economy works similarly. With the temporary addition of money, transactions can be processed faster and easier, and operations can go more smoothly. The rapid response of the Federal Reserve Bank reduces the effect of recessions, and speeds recovery.

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

Deposit insurance reduces the effect of bank runs. Before 1933, when a bank was in danger of closing, customers would rush to get their money out, before it became lost in the disappearing bank. Since banks can't keep all of their holdings on hand at once, some people would inevitably lose their savings. Now, there is no need to make that rush to withdraw, because even if banks are closed, the money is protected. Less damage from bank runs means the banks keep more money available, are are less likely to

nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.

- yet the nazis are protected in their speech with the Constitution.

Everybody has the right to be protected from the government under the Constitution regardless of their speech.

You don't have Constitutional protection against your peers, so if you act like a jackass you may and sometimes will end up being punched in the face. That's the risk you take, and the criminal court may find that this was an assault and the person who punched you is punished for it.

Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations

1. Interpretation of the constitution might be considered to include such things as interpreting "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" to include e-mail messages, computer records and the contents of your cell phone during a traffic stop. Interpreting it _not_ to mean those things is also an interpretation (a bad one), but both ways of seeing it are interpretations. It's a 200+ year old document. Even with the amendment process, it still h

1. No (but you phrased it badly it should be allow reinterpriation as it had to be interpreted at least once otherwise it can't be applied), 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. . Yes (forcing them to on the other hand is questionable) 5. Yes (otherwise there would be no government), 6. No, 7. Yes, 8. Yes

5. Is necessary for the government to exist and to serve its function3 and 7 are functions of the government (at least to an extent) and if they weren't the state would be very close to anarchy and there would be very large

So who holds the "True" interpretation of the document? How do they prove, beyond a doubt that they hold the "true" truth, the one that was locked firmly in the founder's heads. Basically your saying "my interpretation is right and because your interpretation is different, it is wrong, since mine is right". Which is a pretty blatant fallacy.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

I don't see why not. Government exists for "the people", corporations exist "for themselves", someone has to protect the former from the latter, which is why the fo

I'm sorry, can't resist to argue you here, I don't even care about your libertarian views or whatever the correct term is: it's all about point 1.

Saying you can't interpret a text is saying you may not give it meaning. You state the point as if interpretation is a voluntary thing, a way of twisting the 'true meaning' of a text, kind of like religious extremist might do.

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?
---
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

Oh ffs. To believe that the "correct" answer to those questions is always no demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history. What's worse, you consider yourself a "sophisticated" voter!

Those questions have been answered no repeatedly, by similarly-minded people, and have repeatedly ended in widespread, disastrous, often violent failures.

Are you unaware of the violence and damage wrought by strict literalists of various types? It continues to this day. Why would you think constitutional literalists w

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.

Oh, its even worse than that. While interpreting the constitution should naturally be done with great care and respect, its worth noting that it is DOCUMENTED FACT, that several clauses in the constitution are intentionally vague because no more specific language could be agreed on. In other words, the founding fathers pretty much wrote several of the arguments that still exist today straight into our constitution knowingly...

Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution"..
Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..

Well, to be fair, the courts' ability to interpret the consitution is not actually explicitly stated in said document. They asserted that power in an early Supreme Court decision (Marbury vs. Madison) [wikipedia.org] and didn't get impeached for it -- in part because it actually reduced the authority of the court by stating congress didn't have the power to extend the authority of the court, a fascinating slight of hand, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in multiple speeches on the history of the court -- thus making it the

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language.

I'm sure the belief that one need not interpret the Constitution is a result of such brilliance as: A=A.

That's why I propose to establish a Sortition [wikipedia.org] system where a body of randomly selected jurors (obviously screened for violent crimes, mental health, etc) would be given governing power over the region the jurors are from. The State Jury might decide to elect one of the State Governor candidates as State Minister, but they will retain power to oversee and override his/her decisions, as well as the power to remove or add members to the Minister's Cabinet. The system could be established at any single level or

Word. This is one reason why I no longer believe in democracy. Possession of tyrannical power does not become better just because we take turns, or only award turns to those who win a stupid popularity contest. It's not that we need somebody to possess these tyrannical powers and need a safe and rational way to hand it out -- it's that we need nobody to possess these powers!

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

I am not sure if you mean this as a criticism of democracy or not, but - part of the price of democracy is that people are given the power to vote stupid people in who do dumb things. (Assuming we are talking about a "real" democracy with fair elections, not one of the sham ones - I am not sure where India falls here.)

If they have a real democracy, then after this dumb idea is rolled out and fails spectacularly, then they should have the ability to vote in a new politician who promises to remove it.

While I'm not entirely sure how good or bad the Indian elections are... I do know that Indian people have a deep racism/classism for one of their Indian subgroups (I forget the actual name given to these people, but they get the shittiest jobs possible in their society and have been abused multiple ways over their history)... I also know that Indian government houses deep corruption where anyone with money and status can have anyone 'lesser' (basically anyone who doesn't have the means to do the same to the

'cos there's no one left. Just as some Americans point out that both R and D are only loyal to different sets of corporate masters and have no interest in the welfare of the common people, here it's all about naked power grab for its own sake. India has a multi party system, but all of them pander to various communities and vote banks.Educated urban Indians such as yours truly have simply dissociated themselves from the political process over the last 64 years since independence with the broad (and mostly t

What are you saying? There's all kinds of good reasons for this. Like, uh... think of the children! Yeah, that's it. And the terrorists, too! What about people infringing upon the copyright of others (the most serious crime of all)?